Monday, October 15, 2012

The Obama Breaking Point

PJ Media ^ | 10-14-2012 | Victor Davis Hanson

The election is not over, but it is starting to resemble October 29 or November 1 in 1980, when, after just one debate, the nation at last decided that it really did not like Jimmy Carter very much or what he had done, and discovered that Ronald Reagan was not the mad Dr. Strangelove/Jefferson Davis of the Carter summer television ads.

Like Carter, Obama both has no wish to defend his record (who would?) and is just as petulant. In the next three weeks, he has only three hours left to save his presidency.
There are lots or reasons why various groups are tiring of Obama. It is not just the economy, but also all the untruths about the economy over the last four years that sounded like daily communiqués from the Ministry of Truth. .....

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

From "Point Break" - the movie

"Sayonara, brah!!"


This is from the Wall Street Journal.
Please note - not one racist comment - Wall Street Journal Sizes up Obama
A "deadly" article regarding Obama, in the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America.
Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Alan Caruba:
"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.
In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?
He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.
Now, 3 full years into his presidency, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain .
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.
Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.
When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.
We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States?
We the people are coming!

Deficit Tops $1 Trillion for Fourth Straight Year Under Obama! (big recovery?)

NewsMax ^ | 10/15/2012

The U.S. budget deficit has topped $1 trillion for a fourth straight year, but a modest improvement in economic growth helped narrow the gap by $207 billion compared with last year.
The Treasury Department said Friday the deficit for the 2012 budget year totaled $1.1 trillion. Tax revenue rose 6.4 percent from last year to more than $2.4 trillion, helping contain the deficit.
The government's revenue rose as more people got jobs and received income. Corporations also contributed more tax revenue than in 2011.
Government spending fell 1.7 percent to $3.5 trillion. The decline reflected, in part, less defense spending as U.S. military involvement in Iraq was winding down.
Barack Obama's presidency has now coincided with four straight $1 trillion-plus annual budget deficits — the first in history and an issue in an election campaign that ends in Nov. 6.
Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, contends that Obama failed to achieve a pledge to halve the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that the deficit for that year would total $1.2 trillion. It ended up at a record $1.41 trillion.
The increase was due, in part, to higher government spending to fight the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s Tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the deficits.
The budget gaps in 2010 and 2011 were slightly lower than the 2009 deficit as a gradually strengthening economy generated more tax revenue. But the deficits still exceeded $1 trillion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Issa: State Dept. sitting on $2 billion-plus for embassy security (Budget cut by Repubs. myth busted)

Politico ^ | 10/14/12 | JOHN BRESNAHAN

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation" to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.
Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn't want to the appearance of needing increased security.
"The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don't want the presence of security," Issa said. "That is not how you do security."
With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue, Democrats have countered that House GOP leaders actually sought to cut funding for embassy security, which Issa tried to refute.
"You can't always look to [new] money when there's money sitting there," Issa said. "We're going through a 'Mission Accomplished' moment. Eleven years after Sept. 11 [2001], Americans were attacked by terrorists who pre-planned to kill Americans. That happened, and we can't be in denial."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Wide Load

The Great Ethanol Scam

CNSNews ^ | October 15, 2012 | Alan Caruba

The rocketing costs of gasoline and the escalating price of corn are the result of U.S. government mandates requiring the inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline all Americans must use. The time has long since passed to eliminate ethanol from this primary fuel.
A recent report by ActionAid USA, “Fueling the Food Crisis: The Cost to Developing Countries of U.S. Corn Ethanol Expansion” is based on work by researchers at Tufts University. ActionAid USA is an anti-poverty group. The study found that the corn-importing countries of Central America and North Africa are at the highest risk from ethanol expansion—the requirement to include ethanol with gasoline.
“Strong policy should not be based on prayers for good weather, especially when the stakes are so high. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the G20, it is time to recognize that current biofuel mandates are unsustainable,” said Kristin Sundell, a policy analyst for ActionAid USA.
The group is calling on G20 leaders who are meeting on World Food Day, October 16, to eliminate incentives that encourage unsustainable biofuels production.
The idea behind ethanol is that it reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and, in doing so, it saves the Earth from global warming/climate change, but CO2 plays no role in climate change, and shows up well after any increase or decrease of temperatures. Ethanol is bad science. It is bad for the engines of cars that must use such a gasoline blend. It increases the cost of gasoline and all other corn-based products. It actually increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And it reduces the mileage a car can achieve with pure gasoline.
An authority on the U.S. oil industry is Sel Graham, the author of “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High.” He is a man with more than fifty year’s experience, first as a petroleum reservoir engineer and later as an oil and gas attorney. He is also a graduate of West Point.
Here’s what Graham has to say about the current gas prices: “Gasoline prices could be decreased instantly by President Obama if he wanted to do so. Republicans have not yet picked up on this issue.”
“Abolishing the ethanol mandate requiring ethanol to be blended with gasoline at the pump or waiving the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) would: (1) lower gasoline prices by millions of dollars; (2) result in billions of miles of free travel annually; (3) prevent millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide from being emitted into the air; and (4) improve national security and the energy picture since it is impossible for US ethanol to ever replace foreign oil imports.”
“The following is reference data for skeptics. Gasoline prices can be lowered instantly by either abolishing the ethanol mandate which requires that ethanol be blended with gasoline at the pump or waiving the RFS. This would eliminate the millions of dollars in waivers which refineries are required to purchase because there is no cellulosic ethanol production, thereby decreasing the price of gasoline."
"The 2012 RFS for cellulosic ethanol is 8.65 million gallons. Cellulosic ethanol production through August 2012 has been only 20,069 gallons, a shortage of 8.63 million gallons requiring $0.78 per gallon waivers.”
An essential truth that few Americans are aware of is that “The price of U.S. oil is always lower than the price of foreign oil. Last year, U.S. oil averaged $95.73 per barrel, $7.25 cheaper than foreign oil imports at $102.98 per barrel. If U.S. oil replaced the 3,261 million barrels of foreign oil imports, it would be a savings to Americans of $23.6 billion annually.”
Given the enormous oil reserves in America, both domestic and offshore, there is no reason why they should not be extracted, but the environmental movement in combination with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior and Energy Departments, has restricted access to our own oil.
The ethanol mandates are not just robbing Americans at the gas pump, they are endangering the cost of food prices worldwide
Current government energy policies are a definition of insanity.

'Preparing for Mass Civil War'...22 bullets for each and every Republican!

'Preparing for Mass Civil War', Obama's Homeland Security Department Buys
1.2+ BILLION Rounds of Ammo

22 bullets for each and every Republican...

The story of how Frat-Boy Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security was preparing for civil unrest in the US was initially reported here back in May, when a person claiming to be a DHS insider let it be known that the highly-politicized agency was expecting political/economic street battles... and was getting ready to confront any protesters with overwhelming force.

Worse yet, its our own president (and his supporters) fanning-the-flames: 'Occupy' was the first -failed- rabble-rousing stunt (funded by Soros), but there'll be more- GOP convention, etc.

What they are trying to do in the short-term is draw-in conservative/TEA Party elements to some sort of physical confrontation -as attempted by violent leftists at Paul Ryan's speech in Iowa this week- then hopefully a conflict would spread nationally, at least to a level where the Obama regime could send in DHS riot police to crack clingers' heads and
lock-up as many as possible
(those expecting anything resembling balanced justice would be in for a hideous shock).

Yet as unsettling as Homeland Security's purchase of 450M hollow-tip rounds three months ago was (already shipped), now as Dear Leader slides in the polls we hear that DHS has placed another, far larger order: 750M rounds of various types, up to and including mag cartridges that can penetrate walls
(DHS order Pdf here).

The agency also has an open order for 175K rounds of rifle ammo, putting the DHS total -alone/that we know of- at
over 1.2 BILLION rounds. As concerned folks have begun to take notice, evidence suggests that Big Sis is attempting to conceal any incremental DHS purchases.

Typical of standard practice with this foul, Castro-esque regime, no explanation has been offered for such massive ammo buys coming like a bolt from the blue....

Hopenchange.... or else

No answers either re. why they need killer hollow-tip bullets (ostensibly for target practice!).

Nor for 'urgent' orders of riot gear by Homeland Security
(as well as the US Army), new armored checkpoint booths with built-in traffic signals, or mysterious troop/armor movements observed throughout the US in recent months.

More pointed still would be a recently leaked US Army training manual entitled 'Civil Disturbance Operations', which besides other things spells-out how to confiscate weapons, quell rioting, and even kill American citizens. Among the many thought-provoking passages in the pamphlet are 'warning shot will not be fired' and one describing how 'political activists' will be
're-educated' into developing an 'appreciation of U.S. policies'.

Although the Army's willingness to obey illegal orders is in-doubt, another outfit to worry about would be FEMA, the federal emergency agency first established to aid the population and guarantee a continuation-of-government in the event of WWIII.

Even though that Soviet threat no longer exists, the powers of FEMA have been expanded over the years, to the point where it is the only government entity with the potential ability to suspend the Constitution, confiscate property, and -yes- kill people as it sees fit... all it takes is the type of executive order President Obama is already oh-so-very fond of.

FEMA relocation schemes and large-scale (concentration) camp expansions are plenty disconcerting, too: the largest of these sites lays just outside Fairbanks, Alaska (our Siberia!)- featuring a gargantuan mental-health facility, it can hold up to two million detainees (!)

Note that the Soviet Union often shipped recalcitrant, politically-irritating people off to the Happy Home for 'fixing' as well.

And what's up with the Social Security Administration
stocking-up on hollow-tip rounds?

OR the freaking National Weather Service acquiring the same type of high-powered ammo...?

Is it just me or does it seem like the Bolshevik Boy Wonder is arming-to-the-teeth any (loyal) federal agency that can even remotely scrape-up a potential reason to be shooting at people who stand in his way come November?

A PSA for executive branch bureaucrats!

RedState ^ | October 14, 2012 | Moe Lane

Hi! Are you an employee of the State Department? Treasury? Defense? Justice? Interior? Agriculture? Labor? Health & Human Services? Housing & Urban Development? Transportation*? Energy? Education? Veterans Affairs? Homeland Security? Commerce?


Wow. I didn’t actually think that I’d be able to find shenanigans going on in the Commerce Department. Aside from the Census, it doesn’t really do all that much.

…anyway, if you are a member of this or any other government agency, please take this test. Please look around your desk Monday and see if you can see anything that will make you go Man, if Darrell Issa ever hears about this one then the fecal matter is going to impact the oscillating blade. If you do see anything like that, you would be well-advised to make sure that an Obama political appointee has signed off on your actions. In writing. Three copies: one for your files, one for the appointee’s… and one for next year’s House Oversight Committee hearing.
Because there’s a limit to how many pardons the administration will sign, and never mind how many they can sign.

PS: I’ve given this advice before, I think. Only, it’s really good advice (said he, probably arrogantly).

*Admittedly the most of a reach.

On the Road to Death Panels ^ | October 15, 2012 | Star Parker

With the first presidential debate and the only vice-presidential debate behind us, it seems pretty clear that so-called "social issues" are not going to get much attention in this year's presidential politics.
It's unfortunate, I think. We deceive ourselves to permit the assumption that values and behavior are not the real drivers behind our economic problems.
The fiscal crisis of our entitlement programs is the direct result of these values and behavior.
The fiscal soundness of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is rooted in the assumption that those who work can fund the needs of our elderly through payroll taxes. In the case of Social Security, we're talking about retirement income; in the case of Medicare, health costs of the aged; and Medicaid, long-term care of low-income elderly.
When these programs were founded, using payroll taxes to fund care for our elderly seemed like a viable idea.
The bottom has fallen out, however, because of changes in our behavior. There are fewer and fewer workers per retiree as result of longer life spans and a shrinking workforce.
In 1950, there were 16 working Americans for every retiree. Today, there are fewer than three. By 2030, it's projected there will be fewer than two.
It doesn't take a supercomputer to realize that if we don't reduce the retirement and health care resources available to our elderly, the burden on each working American to provide those resources increases substantially.
Yet the discussion about this crisis is 100 percent focused on how to cut the spending and zero attention is spent on restoration of values that could rebuild families, produce more children and stop destroying the unborn.
According to a new report just out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the overall fertility rate of American women -- defined by the number of births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 -- is the lowest ever recorded since the government started gathering this information. After years of hovering slightly above 2.1, it has now dropped below to 1.9.
According to demographers, a fertility rate of 2.1 -- in which each adult woman produces 2.1 children on average over her lifetime -- is necessary to keep the overall population steady.
Which means the overall U.S. population is shrinking.
We generally look to Europe to see low fertility rates and shrinking populations. However, according to the Economist magazine, the U.S., at 1.9, now has a fertility rate lower than France, whose fertility rate stands at 2.0.
A change in prevailing values could reverse this trend. But the opposite is happening.
According to a new Gallup poll, for the first time the majority of Americans feel that government should not promote any particular set of values.
In 1993, the first year that Gallup did this annual survey, 53 percent said that government should promote traditional values and 42 percent said that no particular set of values should be promoted. Now, in this latest survey, it is the opposite: 52 percent say no particular set of values should be promoted and 44 percent say government should promote traditional values.
With no rebirth of traditional values that could lead to more babies, caring for our elderly will become an increasingly onerous burden. Where can this soulless materialism lead?
In a Sept. 16 New York Times op-ed, Steven Rattner -- a New York investment banker and former counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration -- provided a shockingly candid answer.
The op-ed began by saying, "We need death panels."
Rattner then qualified this by saying, well, maybe not "exactly."
But, he concluded: "We may shrink from ... stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable."

Lying From Behind on Libya ^ | October 15, 2012 | John Ransom

Let’s start where it first began.

No, not the election of Barack Hussein Obama, although that would be a good call.
Jump further ahead in the story.

Back in March 2011, when Obama started lobbing missiles at Libya, liberals assured us that we were NOT at war.
Instead the administration described it as time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military activity- which is just another made up phrase that liberals use to remind us that they are the people Orwell warned us about.
And thankfully, NPR-- yes THAT NPR, the Big Bird NPR-- allowed us to remain calm, by helping the administration keep it simple.
Just lie, they reminded the greatest communicator ever. Obama took his cue and lied from behind.
We are not at war, the Corporation for Public Race-baiting tells us, even if we are a bunch of Tea Party fascists and racists, I wrote in March 2011.
To bolster the NPR case, their totally, 100 percent, objective reporter found a college professor to tell us not to worry, we’re not at war.
"Would I consider us 'at war' with Libya at this moment?” Judkin Browning, a professor of Military History at Appalachian State, who studies the American Civil War, told NPR. “I would say no, simply because of the very limited nature of our military mission."
Wow. That was easy.
Kind of like an award-winning Sesame Street episode.
N.O. spells “No.” This non-war was sponsored by the letters N & O.
Remind me: Just exactly why does Romney propose killing and eating Big Bird?
It’s not like Big Bird was responsible for the subsequent capture and sodomizing of Muammar Gaddafi before he was killed by extra-legal means.
It was likely a contingent of NATO soldiers that made Gaddafi’s capture and beating death possible.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the guy deserved to get beaten to death.
But then there is a big difference between my personal opinion, and the obligations of the president of the United States to follow the laws of war, especially when he’s the “brilliant” legal scholar and Nobel Prize recipient, law-giver and leading cell-phone provider in the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
Not to worry, lied the man who condemned the trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein-- who, by the way, received justice under the laws of Iraq. Gaddafi got it on the side of the road by a mob enabled by the USA under president Obama.
And pay no attention to the men behind the dictator beating him says the guy who condemns U.S. detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay as inhumane.
“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she supports calls for an investigation into the death of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi as part of Libya's transition from dictatorship to democracy,” winked the Associated Press at the time.
“Clinton says a democratic Libya should begin with the rule of law and accountability, as well as unity and reconciliation. She says investigating Gadhafi's death is part of the process.”
It’s been 18 months since Obama got off his missiles in Libya.
There’s been no investigation, no declaration of war, no explanation as to why we are destabilizing the region deliberately.
One would think that the man strong enough to stop the seas from rising, as Obama says he has, might be strong enough to withstand his own administration’s rhetoric.
Democracy, rule of law, accountability and… lies.
Especially lies.
The lies are the glue that holds Obama’s Libyan policy together.
Because the line Obama must take at all costs is that, of course, we are NOT supporting Al Qaeda-- or radical Islamists-- in Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, when, OF COURSE that’s exactly what we are doing.
Hence the coordinated terror attack by Al Qaeda on the American Embassy in Benghazi, Libya proves an inconvenient truth for Obama that must be blamed on someone else. The repeated call for increased security by the diplomatic staff before the attack, also proves awkward for the administration as it lies from behind.
"It's awkward for anybody. If you talk to people in the intelligence community and now at the State Department, they're not happy,” said CNN’s John King. “The leaders of the administration, in their view, Jay Carney speaks for the president, so that's the President of the United States, the Vice President last night, on stage last night, essentially publicly scolding, publicly blaming others for what happened in the administration. Those people don't like that."
They don’t like it because they have warned Obama that arming Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, and likewise Islamists in Egypt, has spread the influence of terror networks just at a time when their bases of operation in places like Yemen are under pressure.
These are folks who have suffered through multiple deployments overseas fighting Al Qaeda, and personally know people who have died for Obama’s bumper-sticker wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Africa.
Ask your kids a quick question: Arming Al Qaeda; good idea? Yes or No?
It’s an easy question only Obama could flunk.
And now these brave people, who have born the brunt of the war on terror around the world, have a commander-in-chief who blames them for their own casualties, while he claims credit for their victories, like the death of bin Laden.
And like all his other failures, Obama can only blame others for his own mistakes and then lie from behind.

Believe it – Employment Numbers Were Ginned! ^ | October 15, 2012 | Bruce Bialosky

A couple weeks ago, this column analyzed the inflation rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and concluded that you should rely on your common sense when the government reports questionable statistics. If they don’t make sense based on what you see, experience, and hear from your friends, then they’re probably wrong. Last week’s unemployment number – which decreased to a still-dismal 7.8% – should not only make no sense to you, but should have never made sense to the BLS and therefore should never have been issued.
So am I just popping off or is there a factual basis for this claim? Statistical analysis has to pass a smell test, and the BLS should have known that what they presented did not. Their own web site states that “The unemployment rate declined by 0.3% to 7.8% in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1% to 8.3%.” Nowhere is there any explanation of why this anomaly occurred.
You, sitting at home without a degree in statistical analysis, look at the statement from the BLS and scratch your head. Did something happen in the last month that radically changed our economy? If there were only 114,000 new jobs reported, how did 873,000 more people report being employed? If you were running the BLS, you would likely tell the people who brought you this nonsense to go back and check their figures. Or you might ask: if this is correct, have the numbers been wrong for the past year?
Then you would start to search for correlating information. Let’s see, the average work week increased by 0.1 hours. Yes, that’s six minutes – not exactly steamrolling. Then you would see that the underemployment rate remained steady at 14.7%, and you would recall that just a week ago, the anemic economic growth of 1.7% for the second quarter was revised even lower to an abysmal 1.3%. You might ponder the whole matter, take a break, drive to lunch, see that gas prices are astronomical, and come to the conclusion that this unemployment number is just nuts.
Arriving back home after having lunch (which cost a few bucks more than a couple of months back), you begin to do a little research. You review the comments made on September 13th by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. He spoke of the continued weakness in the U.S. economy, and, in fact, the entire justification for his QE3 announcement – made just three weeks before the BLS announced the surreal dip in the unemployment rate – was the weak job market. Was Bernanke just totally out of touch? Then you remember that right after Bernanke’s QE3 announcement, the survey of America’s CEOs reported that their level of confidence in the economy plummeted to the lowest level since the third quarter of 2009. These are the folks who actually hire people for jobs.
You now apply some common sense to this entire situation. You see that the labor force participation rose a meager 0.1% from the prior month – observing with frustration that if it were the same as it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11%. You also notice that the number of long-term unemployed remains at 4.8 million Americans.
You eventually discover that the unemployment rate is determined by a household survey of a very small proportion of the population. And then it hits you – the BLS merely spoke to a few Americans who have been unemployed for what seems like forever, who in quiet desperation told the BLS that they started a home business. Of course, the BLS doesn’t ask “and how is that going?” They just mark that person down as employed. Poof: 873,000 fewer unemployed Americans.
We interviewed Jim Borbely, an economist, of the Current Population Survey department of the BLS. He indicated they perform a monthly survey of 60,000 homes that rotates every four months. I asked him whether anyone looked at the numbers, noticed what appeared to a major statistical anomaly, and said “Boy, we gotta do this over; it just doesn’t make any sense.” He told me that no one did that – they just applied the same procedures that they’ve been using for sixty years. When I pointed out that the numbers made no sense mathematically or scientifically, he just stuck to his endorsement of their process. The most I could get him to admit was that “It could be a statistical anomaly that could correct itself next month.” When I stated that this could potentially have a significant impact on the presidential election, he replied “We are not a political organization.”
Which is, on the face of it, an utter fallacy; any branch of government is political. More importantly, Obama appointed a new Director of the BLS – Erica Gorshen, a Harvard graduate with a PhD in Economics, a former union member, and the teacher of a class called Statistics for Economists: Trade Unions, Collective Bargaining, and Public Policy. She claims that she is nonpartisan, but who in their right mind would conclude that she is anything other than a member of the left-wing “intelligentsia”?
The question we’ll never get answered is who ultimately approved the release of these errant numbers? Of course, no one had a political agenda; but, if that were true, why didn’t Obama appoint someone from the Heritage Foundation? They have some pretty qualified folks over there.
Or there is the other possibility. The BLS operates within the Department of Labor, whose Secretary is Hilda Solis, easily the most partisan member of Obama’s cabinet. That’s hard to believe, what with Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius floating around, but it’s true. Then we have a President who just offered to cover the legal costs of defense contractors who break the law by not sending out legally-required notices to employees 60 days before anticipated layoffs. Then you think: could these be manipulated numbers? You betcha! There is another way to gin numbers than changing them around. You can gin them by ignoring significantly invalid numbers and treating them as real. Either way it is still ginning.
What’s amazing is that they think we’re stupid enough to believe this pile of cow manure. America was stupid enough to put this crowd into office; I guess they believe that they can sell us anything.

Trusting Biden’s Malarkey ^ | October 15, 2012 | Dan Holler

While the pundits may dismiss Vice President Joe Biden’s pained expressions and hyperbolic claims as just “Joe being Joe,” there is ample reason for voters of all stripes to be concerned with claims last week. With an electorate so distrusting of Washington (and rightfully so), Joe Biden did absolutely nothing to instill confidence that the next four years will be better than the last.
There is one line, buried at the end of a rambling answer, which not only defined the Vice President’s debate strategy, but also his belief that his folksy, blue-collar personality gives him license to send facts on vacation:
“Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this -- a man who introduced a bill that would raise it 40 -- $6,400 a year; knowing it and passing it, and Romney saying he'd sign it, or me and the president?”
Of course, the irony here is that Biden is talking about trust while intentionally misleading the American people. As the Heritage Foundation’s Rea Hederman explained, “Any claim, in the media or elsewhere, that uses the CBO evaluation of the 2011 Ryan plan is fundamentally flawed and erroneous.”
For emphasis, Paul Ryan added, “This is what politicians do when they don't have a record to run on: try to scare people from voting for you.”
Not only did Biden attempt to do just that on Medicare with numerous thoroughly debunked myths (more on that in a minute), but he also made some rather absurd assertions on Libya and the Supreme Court.
When asked about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the assassination of four Americans, Biden denied any knowledge of security concerns in Libya: “Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.” Of course, just a day earlier State Department officials testified there were indeed requests for more security.
The next day, White House press secretary Jay Carney went into damage control, offering the weak explanation that Biden “was speaking about himself, the president and the White House. He was not referring to the administration.”
Hillary Clinton was not the only high-level Obama official hit by the Biden bus. During the debate, Biden explained, “we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew” about the terrorist attack in Libya. Then, without a second thought, Biden went from using the intelligence community as a scapegoat to using them a justification for the administration’s approach to Iran. It was the politics of convenience.
In recent years, nothing has screamed politics like the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Here too, Biden made news. While proclaiming a Romney administration would appoint justices that would “outlaw abortion,” Biden guaranteed “that will not happen” in an Obama administration because they’ve already picked two “good justices.” Ryan pounced, asking the Vice President if there was an abortion litmus test placed on the justices.
Biden, sensing danger, quickly backpedalled, saying they “did not come with an agenda.” However, the damage may have already been done. The guy who brushed off a Ryan gaffe joke by proclaiming “I always say what I mean” inadvertently implied the Obama administration has a pro-abortion litmus test for its judicial nominees.
Since both Ryan and Mitt Romney seem to relish discussing Medicare, it’s worth noting a few more of Biden’s baseless claims. Again, he equated conservative efforts to reform Medicare to the implementation of a “voucher program.” It’s poll-tested lingo that is, without a doubt, completely false. There is no proposal that would give seniors a “small printed piece of paper…that may be exchanged for goods or services.” Biden may think “facts matter,” but clearly he does not hold simple definitions in the same high regard.
By most accounts, partisans on both sides walked away from last week’s debate feeling as though their respective missions were accomplished. Over the next three weeks, however, Biden’s “loose talk” and ambivalence toward the truth may very well confirm Americans’ deepest suspicions of our elected leaders. And if that happens, the Biden 2016 chatter will likely be coming from Republicans, not his fellow Democrats.

Obama’s ‘Long March’ to victory in November spearheaded by Muppets!

Hot Air ^ | October 14, 2012 | Howard Portnoy

MSNBC’s race-baiting commentator Touré has an amusing pep talk in Sunday’s Daily News, in which he assures the Democratic faithful that Obama has this one sewn up. The evidence Touré offers in support of his conviction is as thin as his overuse of metaphor is thick (“It has been so long since Democrats felt even a scintilla of electoral despair that the slightest taste of it was frightening enough to make them look like [sic] they were in Edvard Munch’s ‘The Scream.’”)
The timing of the column is interesting, coming as it does the morning after Real Clear Politics updated its Electoral College map to reveal that Obama’s once impressive lead has shriveled to ten votes, 201 to 191. But don’t worry, children, Uncle Touré advises. Unemployment is below 8%, dontcha know (even though a glaring disparity between the number of jobs added and the lowered rate in the September BLS report has some analysts scratching their heads). Plus Joe Biden’s whoop-a-thon on Thursday, in which he stopped just this side of dropping his pants, is sure to restore the polls to “normalcy.” Finally there’s this: “Months ago, the President successfully framed this as a choice election, not a referendum, and the Republicans never offered a compelling alternative choice.”
Compelling arguments like that might be hard to counter, but just to be on the safe side, other Obama supporters have taken to the streets. Reuters reports that a “Million Muppet March” on D.C. has been planned for Nov. 3, three days before the election.
The idea for the demonstration was independently conceived by Michael Bellavia, 43, an animation executive from Los Angeles, and Chris Mecham, a 46-year-old college student from Idaho, who have since pooled their intellectual resources. Bellavia bought the URL, which provides instructions on how to make a sock puppet. Interesting, the site also allows comments, the first of which is subversive, noting that “Big Bird made enough money last year to put himself in the one percent earnings bracket. So isn’t this a Millionaire March?”
The Obama campaign itself continues to attempt to score points by invoking the name of Big Bird. Last Thursday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki proclaimed on Air Force One that “there’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane.” Unluckily for the president, she was referring to him.

Green stimulus profiteer [Elon Musk] comes under IRS scrutiny!

The Washington Examiner ^ | October 14, 2012 | Timothy P. Carney

Vice President Biden snickered during last week's debate at the suggestion there was waste, inefficiency or cronyism in the 2009 stimulus bill.
If he can stop cackling for long enough, Biden, the self-proclaimed "stimulus sheriff" should sit down with the IRS officials and the federal inspector general who are investigating a solar company owned by leading Obama donor and subsidy recipient Elon Musk.
Musk, as he cashes in on his solar investment by taking his company SolarCity public this month, had to make an awkward admission in his financial filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Internal Revenue Service is auditing SolarCity, the SEC filings reveal, and at the same time the Treasury Department's inspector general is investigating the company. The question at hand: Did President Obama's Treasury Department inappropriately give stimulus money to Musk's company.
Obama's stimulus transformed a long-standing tax credit for renewable energy investment into a direct grant from Treasury, worth 30 percent of a company's investment in a renewable project. Musk's company has applied for approximately $325 million in these stimulus grants, according to the SEC filing.
Treasury found that SolarCity repeatedly overstated the value of its investments, the SEC filings indicate. In those cases, Treasury awarded smaller grants than SolarCity had tried to claim. Now the department's IG and the IRS are doing a broader audit of the projects for which SolarCity and other large solar companies got stimulus cash. Investigators want to know if the companies regularly overstated the value of their investments and thus got overly generous taxpayer grants.
While no government body has accused SolarCity of wrongdoing, the company disclosed: "[I]f at the conclusion of the investigation the Inspector General concludes that misrepresentations were made, the Department of Justice could decide to bring a civil action to recover amounts it believes were improperly paid to us."
The Obama administration's possible mismanagement of the grant program is one issue here. Musk's intimate ties to politics are another.
Musk is the paradigmatic political entrepreneur, launching businesses that seek to capitalize on government favors and lobbying clout rather than provide goods or services that consumers demand.
Musk is CEO of and the biggest investor in Tesla Motors, an electric car company that depends on stimulus money and other subsidies. He also founded Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, whose primary customer is the federal government.
Musk has personally given more than $100,000 to Obama's re-election campaign, including two gifts of more than $30,000 each to the Obama Victory Fund, which divides the money between the maximum allowable donations to the Democratic National Committee and the maximum to the Obama campaign. (Musk has also given generously to Republicans.)
Keep those max gifts in mind when Obama says he rejects donations from lobbyists. Musk is not a registered lobbyist, but he lobbies. Hard. In early 2010, auto industry news site Autoblog described his lobbying on Tesla's behalf: "Musk flew to Washington D.C. at least a dozen times since early 2009 to help make the case to the Department of Energy for nearly half a billion dollars in low interest loans as part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program."
Tesla got that $465 million loan from Obama's DOE in order to produce the Model S, an all-electric plug-in car, which will also benefit from other stimulus goodies. This summer, Tesla began delivering the taxpayer-subsidized cars at $50,000 a pop.
Musk touts SpaceX as the cutting edge of free-enterprise space exploration, but so far the company's revenue seems to come mostly from Uncle Sam. My Washington Examiner colleague Richard Pollock reported that NASA has given $824 million to SpaceX through a special program known as the Space Act Agreements, which circumvents much of the oversight in other federal spending. Most notably, SpaceX just delivered freight to the International Space Station.
Musk's Obama ties go beyond his maximum donations.
One of Tesla's major investors is the Westly Group, founded by Steve Westly, who also sat on Tesla's board of directors. Westly is a top-tier Obama bundler, having raised more than $1.5 million for Obama over his two elections, according to the New York Times.
Obama put Westly on an energy policy advisory board, which was charged with giving recommendations on modifying federal subsidies to buyers of electric cars.
Musk has also recruited some of K Street's best-connected Democratic lobbyists. In the weeks after Obama's election in 2008, SolarCity and Tesla both hired McBee Strategic, the lobbying firm at the center of the green-energy subsidy universe. SolarCity and Tesla also retain the Podesta Group, founded by Obama confidant and transition director John Podesta.
Joe Biden might find this all funny, but taxpayers, if they knew, wouldn't likely be entertained.

We're in...

Posted Image


Posted Image

His record

Posted Image

"Take the bus"

Posted Image

Hope? Nope!

Posted Image

One term

Posted Image


Posted Image

Return on investment

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Can't wait

Posted Image


Posted Image

That sound...

Posted Image

Things are bad...

Posted Image

Obama faces dilemma over gas prices as presidential campaign hits homestretch!

the hill ^ | 10/14/2012 | By Ben Geman

President Obama faces a dilemma as Mitt Romney bashes him over high gasoline prices in the final weeks of their close race.
Obama must decide whether to address the attacks head-on, or stay the course on a messaging strategy that has recently been addressing prices indirectly.
Democratic strategists and other experts argue that three weeks before voters go to the polls, Obama should steer clear of big messaging or policy pivots on gas prices.
“Bringing the issue up this close to Election Day would be self-defeating at this point,” said Paul Bledsoe, an independent consultant who was a climate change aide in the Clinton White House. Dramatic action on energy appears unlikely before the election even as the campaigns tweak their closing arguments.
White House officials have said in recent months that a release from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an option on the table. But speculation about the prospect has dimmed in recent weeks as oil prices have fallen off their summer highs that reached around $100-per-barrel in mid-September.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...